Anyone HEARD the qol 'signal completion' device?

Haven't heard it, but in my past life as musician, I have heard many devices that can make a piece of reproduced music nicer to listen to - Aphex Aural Exciter for example, although that device is very old by now and I'm sure there are plenty of new items available in the studio to spice up a track. In general, these devices worked by manipulating the eq and phase to make things sound bigger and more present. I read the review of this device and the interview with the designer and I don't doubt for a minute that this gizmo may well make an audio system sound more pleasing. But I do have a hard time with the "unlocking hidden phase information.. etc" concept. I could see if this device followed the microphone directly in the recording chain, but once the music is recorded, I can't understand the concept of "hidden information" that cannot otherwise be unearthed through playback on the same device on which it was recorded. I realize that audiophiles claim to hate tone controls and DSPs, so from a manufacturing standpoint, it is much more paletable to say you're just uncovering what's already there than to say you're manipulating the signal. Again, I won't say it doesn't sound good or that what the designer is saying isn't true. I just don't see how it's possible. Once something is recorded on a 30 ips tape (for example) I cannot see how that same recorder is failing to play back intact what it just recorded. Enjoy.

I don't think the posts are negative, as you put it. The device may well sound fabulous. Frankly, I think most systems could benefit from some subtle eq and phase manipulation, but audiophiles are uniformly against such things on principle. Except for the bass, where a Rives is permitted under certain conditions. The question is not whether it sounds good. The discussion revolves around how it works and what it does with the signal. If you think it sounds good, who cares what anyone else thinks?